Transcript Main Presentation title: Subtitle of Presentation

Customizable PowerPoint
Presentation: Placing the
Local Conversation in a
National Context
July 20, Slide
2015 1
User Instructions
This customizable presentation is an accompanying resource to A Toolkit for
Status Offense System Reform, Module One: Structuring System Change. The
presentation is intended for use by a local reform champion at a stakeholder
working group launch meeting. The presentation begins with the National
Context, specifically addressing why status offense system change is important
and what system change looks like on the ground. It then moves onto the local
context—this section of the presentation is intended for you to edit so you can
provide meeting participants with an overview of your local system. The
presentation concludes with a slide intended to spark group discussion about
the next phase of reform planning.
We encourage you to tailor this presentation as necessary to meet your local
needs. For example, remove the Vera footer on the slides and add in your own
logo and restructure or swap out any of the national examples. We encourage
you to refer back to Module One when considering which information to include
in the “local context” portion of the presentation. Also, make sure you take a
look at the “notes view” of the slideshow where we have included a suggested
script for the presenter.
Slide 2 • July 20, 2015
Status Offense Reform: An
Opportunity for Change in
Our Community
{Insert Date}
{Insert Your Name Here}
July 20, Slide
2015 3
Presentation Outline
• The National Context:
• Why is status offense system change important?
• What does system change look like on the ground?
• The Local Context: What does our status offense
system look like?
• Discussion: Where do we go from here?
Slide 4 • July 20, 2015
Why is status offense system reform important and what does it
look like on the ground?
THE NATIONAL CONTEXT
Slide 5 • July 20, 2015
Definitions
• Status offenses: Behaviors that are non-criminal in
nature but are prohibited under law because of the
juvenile’s status as a minor
• Common status offenses across the country:
running away, truancy, ungovernability, liquor law
violations, and curfew violations
• Status offense behaviors span a spectrum: In some
cases, these behaviors may simply be a response to peer
pressure or a display of poor judgment. In others, they
may be symptomatic of critical and unmet needs at
home, school, or in the community that can push
children and their families into crisis.
Slide 6 • July 20, 2015
Brief History
• 1960s: Status offense systems created; continued
reliance on juvenile delinquency systems to respond to
status offense behavior
• 1974: Congress passed JJDPA establishing the
Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO)
requirement
• 1980: JJDPA amended to include valid court order
(VCO) exception
Slide 7 • July 20, 2015
Key Statistics
• In 2010, juvenile courts across the country processed
137,000 status offense cases.
• In 36% of these cases, the most serious allegation was
truancy – that’s nearly 50,000 cases in which kids were
taken to court for skipping school.
• Despite the noncriminal nature of these behaviors,
youth in approximately 10,400 cases spent time in
detention.
• In 6,100 cases, the court disposition was a longer-term
placement in a residential facility.
Slide 8 • July 20, 2015
Paradigm Shift: From Courts to
Communities
• The emerging paradigm: Connect struggling families
with social services in their communities, instead of
turning to courts.
• This is because…
• Courts often over-burdened
• Lack of immediate and appropriate crisis response
• High financial and social cost of the juvenile justice
system, particularly for behaviors that are non-criminal
in nature
• More effective alternatives
Slide 9 • July 20, 2015
Features of Effective Community-based
Status Offense System Responses
• Diversion from court.
• An immediate response.
• A process to triage cases.
• Services that are accessible and effective.
• Internal assessment.
Slide 10 • July 20, 2015
Examples from the field
• Florida
• Rapides Parish, LA
• Calcasieu Parish, LA
• Connecticut
• Campbell County, KY
• New York State
Slide 11 • July 20, 2015
Florida
Impetus for Change:
 Growing recognition that courts and detention were
inappropriate for serving runaways and other youth who had
not committed crimes
 Passage of Runaway Youth and Family Act in 1983 created a
statewide task force to plan a new system
Goal:
 To strengthen the continuum of services that would serve
troubled teens and their families in their communities
Reform Champion:
 Legislature has been a key champion in the reform movement
Slide 12 • July 20, 2015
Florida (cont)
Reforms:
 Department of Juvenile Justice contracts with Florida
Network of Youth and Family Services to oversee FINS/CINS
programs
 Youth/families can access immediate services from over 30
sites statewide, with strong emphasis on quality assurance
and accountability
Outcomes:
 Only 4% of status offenses were handled in court in FY 2013
 91% of the 14,847 youth served from 2011-2012 were crime
free six months after services
 A 2011 cost effective evaluation found that Florida avoided
more than $160 million in placement costs due to the
preventive services of the Network
Slide 13 • July 20, 2015
Rapides Parish, LA
Impetus for Change:
 Concern about influx of referrals to informal FINS; and
subsequent court involvement of many of those cases
Goals:
 To limit informal and formal FINS referrals when not truly
necessary, and
 To make service delivery to FINS-involved youth more
efficient and targeted when services are needed
Reform Champion:
 Judge Koch and system stakeholders collected local data,
mapped Rapides’ existing status offense system and studied
national best practices to plan the reform
Slide 14 • July 20, 2015
Rapides Parish (cont)
Reforms:
 Implemented school exhaustion form
 Improved intake, assessment and treatment planning
procedures
Outcomes:
 40% decrease in informal FINS referrals from 2006 to
2010, from 367 to 222 youth
 50% decrease in formal FINS petitions from 2006 to 2010,
from 129 to 65 youth
Slide 15 • July 20, 2015
Calcasieu Parish, LA
Impetus for Change:
 Concern about the long length of time between referral and the
development of a service plan for FINS youth
Goals:
 To link youth and families to needed services in the
community and facilitate immediate access to those services
Reform Champion:
 Calcasieu’s Children and Youth Planning Board (CYPB) took
the lead in planning the MARC
 Engaged in a comprehensive planning process, which included
reviewing FINS data, surveying youth and providers, and
visiting model sites
Slide 16 • July 20, 2015
Calcasieu Parish (cont)
Reforms:
 Launched the Multi-Agency Resource Center (MARC), a central
point of intake for FINS and delinquent youth
 Emphasis on data tracking and review of case processing
times
Outcomes:
 In 2011 (first year of MARC operation), less than 1 percent of
referrals resulted in a court petition
 Time between intake and service plan development has
dropped dramatically, from 50 days to 2 hours
 Since 2006, no youth have been committed to the Office of
Juvenile Justice on FINS charges
Slide 17 • July 20, 2015
Connecticut
Impetus for Change:
 No out-of-court mechanisms for serving Families With
Service Needs (FWSN), leading to many youth on probation
and in detention
 2005: Legislature prohibits detention of FWSN youth and a
legislatively-mandated advisory board created in 2006
Goals:
 To develop court alternatives for status offending youth and
provide least invasive level of intervention possible
Reform Champion:
 Child advocacy organizations lobbied for legislative reform
and FWSN Advisory Board members (including judiciary)
were instrumental in developing comprehensive changes to
the system
Slide 18 • July 20, 2015
Connecticut (cont)
Reforms:
 Schools must take steps before referring youth to court on
truancy
 Risk/needs assessment conducted to match youth’s risk to
appropriate intervention
 Created Family Support Centers, one-stop service center for
youth and families needing intensive services
Outcomes:
• 41% decrease in FWSN court referrals from 2006 – 2008,
from 3,521 referrals to 2,062 referrals
• Percentage of FWSN referrals receiving formal court
processing dropped from 50% of referrals in 2006 to 5% of
referrals in 2010/11
Slide 19 • July 20, 2015
Campbell County, KY
Impetus for Change:
 Court Designated Worker (CDW) diverted status offending
youth from court, but onus was on to initiate services specified
in diversion plan
 Families struggled to make/keep appointments; failure to
comply with services often led to court orders and detention
Goal:
 To provide youth and families with more timely services
outside of the court system, improving diversion success rates
and reducing court involvement
Reform Champion:
 Judge Karen Thomas invited stakeholders to participate in
reform process and established a Change Agent Team to review
data and monitor reform
Slide 20 • July 20, 2015
Campbell County (cont)
Reforms:
 Developed protocols for status offense referrals to ensure
those referred meet the state definition of youth who
commit status offenses
 CDW makes “warm handoff” to service provider and
arranges transportation for youth and family to services
 Site Review Team establishes a comprehensive action plan
for youth and family if initial service plan is unsuccessful
Outcomes:
 50% decrease in status offense court petitions from 2011 to
2012, from 174 to 84 petitions
 29% decrease in status offense detentions from 2010 to
2012, from 85 to 60 youth
Slide 21 • July 20, 2015
New York State
Impetus for Change:
 2001 increase in age of status offense jurisdiction raised
concern about possible spike in court cases and high costs
associated with non-secure detention and placement and
spurred a closer look at the system as a whole
Goals:
 To examine how localities were using the status offense system
and find effective alternatives to juvenile justice involvement
Reform Champion:
 The New York State Office of Children and Family Services
contracted with the Vera Institute to conduct a study and
provide technical assistance to 23 counties over a 3-year
period.
Slide 22 • July 20, 2015
New York State (cont)
Reforms:
 Localities across the state set out to (1) divert more PINS
youth from the court system and into supportive services in
the community and (2) develop community-based
alternatives to non-secure detention and placement
 Legislative change in 2005 to further encourage the use of
court alternatives
Outcomes:
• Between 2003 and 2012, the state saw a 70% decrease in
PINS court petitions.
Slide 23 • July 20, 2015
What does our system look like?
THE LOCAL CONTEXT
Slide 24 • July 20, 2015
Basic Local System Parameters
• Status offenses are classified as {insert
classification, such as PINS, CHINS, FINS,
here}
• Behaviors that constitute a status offense are
{insert behaviors here, such as truancy,
running away, etc., here}
• Youth from age {insert lower to upper age
limit here} may be referred on a status offense
allegation
Slide 25 • July 20, 2015
System Flow Chart
{Insert your system flow chart here}
Slide 26 • July 20, 2015
Key Statistics
{Insert any key statistics you have gathered to
help drive home the need for system reform.
Such statistics may include annual # of court
referrals, failed diversion attempts,
detention admissions, and out-of-home
placements.}
Slide 27 • July 20, 2015
Where do we go from here?
DISCUSSION
Slide 28 • July 20, 2015